----- Original Message ----- From: "Justin Schwartz" <jkschw at hotmail.com> To: <lbo-talk at lists.panix.com> Sent: Friday, December 14, 2001 7:25 PM Subject: Re: Shaw on Herman
> I don't take a position here, although I think the analogy between Kosovo
> and the Occupied Territories is not very good,
Sure, there are plenty of differences. I wasn't aiming for exact similarity of circumstance or even in all the relevant respects. However, I was attempting (rather poorly, I guess) to point out how little sense it makes to call an intra-country conflict between two incredibly mismatched sides a "civil war." The KLA, IRA, Hamas etc. are pitiful organizations that couldn't wage war if they wanted to.
> but the general point is that
> when one people wishes to secede or not be part of a country, it is an
open
> question whether an armed conflict is a civil war.
Right.
> We support self-determination and oppose national oppressioon and
chauvinism,
> but that doesn't tell us whether we ought to support secession in a
concrete
> circumstances. If the question is whether intervention in the conflicts of
> other countries is justified, labeling the war as civil doesn't tell us
> anything even if it is accurate. I think we still have little to improve
on
> just war theory to tell us whether we should, but even then the question
may
> be open in the extreme case. I think the US or just about anyone else
would
> have been justified in stopping the Rwandian genocide, but maybe that
wasn't
> a war. I guess it wasn't.
Why not? I'm sure some of the Tutsis who were being slaughtered retaliated occasionally, perhaps even with small arms.
-- Luke